The Universe is No Accident, Dr. Luke Barnes // CCv1 Session 1

Dr. Luke Barnes was our very first main session speaker at CCv1. In this talk, he presents on the topic, "The Universe is No Accident." After his talk, we took a few questions from the audience.
Special thanks to our videographer John Cranman for the intro on this video!
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on KZbin: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
--------------------------------- LINKS ---------------------------------
Website: capturingchrist...
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchris...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchris...
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #Finetuning #ExistenceofGod

[@suziesmith2142]

I'm in my mid 60's and came to Christ about 5 years ago. Having been on the earth planet and living as long as I have- experiencing all the results of doing EVERYTHING the wrong way, it couldn't be more clear to me that everything is, and we are, miraculously designed.

[@2fast2block]

Glad you saw the light. God's blessings to you.

[@vuho2075]

Hedging your bets now that the end is in sight, right Suzie?

[@suziesmith2142]

@@vuho2075Just amazing what criminal minds like yours, indulge in. No dear. I had no God in my family, friends or anyone. Then I was knocked to my knees by a merciful God who who saw my agony and confusion. Have a nice day, Ho. Your momma must be proud.

[@vuho2075]

@@suziesmith2142 Criminal mind, my goodness. Have a good journey and I hope your bet pays off. Hopefully there is a continuation after this one ends, some exotic paradise that's eternal, etc.. Something to look forward to..

[@seanjones2456]

Designed? Really? You clearly have not done your homework. Mid 60's and lack of homework is not a promising marriage.

[@caleb.lindsay]

this was fun to listen to for sure. i bought his book a long while ago. might be bumping it up in my priority list

[@leahcimmmm]

Oh man, I’m going to check all of this out as soon as I get more time. Pretty excited!

[@UpperCutZX10]

Amazing talk and presentation. Very much looking forward to the rest of the conference. Oh, & *BEWARE THE TROLLS*

[@MyContext]

What made this presentation amazing to you? I found that it missed the mark, since, a fair number of the scientists would also claim to accept determinism which would make the term accident equivalent to happenstance as a byproduct of what is observed to be purely a process.

[@markmcflounder15]

@@MyContext there are problems with determinism. But, I think your using a bit of false equivocation. Determinism wouldn't be the same of chance/happenstance. Nonetheless, reason & rationality are absurd on Determinism. I always ask how can one freely reason that one is determined to think that? If detrrminism is true then no one can freely reason and ascertain good or bad arguments or true or false statements.

[@MyContext]

@@markmcflounder15 Reasoning is necessarily tethered (not free) to what one understands and whatever state of affairs in order to make an adjudication. This point of fact is supported in our AI advancements which demonstrates that reasoning is a process. The term chance as I would claim the term is deterministic, but simply beyond our ability to calculate.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

@@MyContext I guess the discussion would be, what do we mean by "free" and "free will"

[@MyContext]

@@CedanyTheAlaskan Please present a definition of free will wherein such is sustained in the context of reality and also incompatible with determinism.

[@jenniferevans2046]

“Before I formed you in your mother’s womb, I KNEW YOU”. JEREMIAH 1:5. “ But for now we see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know even as also I AM FULLY KNOWN”. 1 Corinthians 13 : 12.

[@keswes266]

I've always wanted to know the answer to the ? of just what point does God do the forming? You've got sperm & eggs getting together at conception (approx. 80% get flushed) 1 usually clings to the wall & starts the iffy journey toward birth providing it manages to avoid all the pitfalls which may cause it harm on the way. So where IS God's hand in this? Please no trite answers about it being a miracle etc. It happens quite frequently.

[@mbarnett865]

Miraculously designed. Born: blind, deaf, cleft palette, no arms, no legs, conjoined twins, midgets, dwarfs, heart disease, brain tumors, mentally retarded, psychopathic, bipolar, cancers (pick one), fill in the blank ________.

[@sishrac]

@@keswes266 You're asking the wrong question!

[@keswes266]

@@sishrac Please. What ? should I ask? THKS.

[@Frankthegb]

You’re in a cult

[@itsgoingdown4real883]

Great event Cameron, love that you are doing this!

[@dw5523]

All that valuable information, and I'm still delighted by the upside down map at the beginning. I'm such a child.

[@ElephantWatchtower]

Can't wait to see more from the conference!

[@prosperitynuggets]

Does anyone know why the content from the conference is released so slowly? Afaik the conference took place several months ago

[@L-mo]

There's nothing here specifically supporting a _christian_ god though, right?

[@markb3786]

There never is.

[@TheBanjoShowOfficial]

There are many other discussions for that point, unless you want this video to be 3-4 hours long. This is just one single subject, you're not going to get every single answer from one video.

[@davidlopez-flores1147]

Great content!

[@Coteincdr]

Man people are so smart in that auditorium!

[@Bc232klm]

If they were smart, they wouldn't be in that auditorium.

[@rosarodriguezarguijo93]

@@Bc232klm how does that statement work? Are they not smart bc they might believe in God or bc they are in the auditorium and can’t answer certain questions themselves? Or why? IMO a smart person is the type that will listen to both sides of an argument, and from the looks of how some of the questions were worded, the people in there seem to have done just that.

[@Coteincdr]

@@Bc232klm if you were smart you wouldn't have made that comment.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

@@Bc232klm The theists and atheists alike? What about the ones with PhD's? Is them being in the auditorium automatically making them unintelligent? That's one hell of a miracle ;)

[@logos8312]

The one thing I was hoping to see addressed in this presentation wasn't (to my knowledge anyway). If we're talking about order and accidents, I think Oppy's dilemma sets the stage for the conversation and will be the elephant in the room until addressed. Can God create an unordered universe? If he can, then God himself isn't the explanation for the universe's being ordered, since God himself exists even in the other case and thus is a ceteris paribus condition. If he can't, then necessarily, if a universe is created by God, it's ordered. Oppy would then claim that you could just posit that necessarily our universe is ordered instead and have one fewer ontological commitment, given some kind of metaphysical necessity is where both converge anyway. Similarly for "why is there a universe?" The dilemma runs exactly the same way.

[@rooruffneck]

That's a great point. But if you find some form of critical Idealism more reasonable than any physicalism that posits consciousness as entailed by or emergent from physical reality, you can have the same starting point (which you describe so well) and it would be the opposite view that adds an unnecessary ontological category (matter). That's my current view. But of course, I'm not positing a self-conscious being as the ground-floor. To that extent, Oppy's view is simpler than the theistic account.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

I think there are two clear responses here. 1.) Let’s assume God could create an unordered universe. Then the explanation would be God’s *decision* to create an ordered universe, which would constitute an explanation prior to the universe itself and yet distinct from God on and of himself. 2.) Let’s say (as I think) God can only create ordered universes. In this case, you still have an explanation for the universe outside of the universe itself. The consideration that leads us away from thinking that the universe’s order itself is necessary is reflection on the intrinsic nature of the universe; there doesn’t seem to be something in the structure of the universe that requires its being ordered. There isn’t anything in the universe that itself explains, for example, the stability of physical laws (gravity doesn’t just change on us).

[@rooruffneck]

@@anglicanaesthetics Hi there. Yeah, once we start talking about God making 'decisions', I just can't find anything coherent there. So I'm with much of what you say. I start with the ontological primitive of consciousness, but it isn't self-conscious. Whatever 'arises' within/from this necessarily 'of' it. So, ultimately, I don't distinguish between the universe and that from which it arises, but I do say that anything manifest is reducible to the ontological primitive, just as all the ripples are reducible to the river itself.

[@logos8312]

@@anglicanaesthetics "1.) Let’s assume God could create an unordered universe. Then the explanation would be God’s decision to create an ordered universe, which would constitute an explanation prior to the universe itself and yet distinct from God on and of himself." It wouldn't, because implicit in the question of whether God "could" is "could God decide to?" It's God's decision precisely that needs to be explained, since if God didn't decide anything the dilemma makes no sense. "Let’s say (as I think) God can only create ordered universes. In this case, you still have an explanation for the universe outside of the universe itself. The consideration that leads us away from thinking that the universe’s order itself is necessary is reflection on the intrinsic nature of the universe; there doesn’t seem to be something in the structure of the universe that requires its being ordered." Correct, you're adding another ontological commitment outside the universe. "There doesn't "seem to be" something in the structure..." isn't a proof that there in fact isn't something in the structure. There could in principle be some synthetic apriori fact about the universe we haven't discovered yet. And to say that apriori, universes just aren't the kinds of things, categorically, that could be necessarily ordered, is just to beg the question. Both positions explain the same thing "order of the universe" both ground it in some necessary fact (about God or about the universe), one needs to posit an extra entity that the other doesn't.

[@logos8312]

@@rooruffneck Wait, how is matter "extra" on your idealistic view if consciousness is emergent from matter? Did you mean to type that in reverse?

[@RicegumRicebum]

Great video

[@Domel23]

The fine tuning argument is fundamentally flawed: 1. If the universe would not be able to sustain life, there would be no life. So you would not be able to observe it. So, you are only able to observe a universe that sustains your life. If you are only able to see red, that does not mean no other colors exist. It just means you only see red because that's all you are able to see. 2. The universe is actually very hostile to life, life exists in spite of it's hostility in small, less hostile pockets. Space is unfathomably vast and the only place we see any life exist is a almost insignificant spec of dust in some random galaxy in some random cluster, all that Space and matter yet no life, and if you go there you die a thousand ways. That's not fine-tuned for life at all, at least not our life. 3. A creator that is is able to create anything in any way would by definition not need to fine tune anything, we design stuff to be fine tuned due to our inability to set thing as we want them to be, we have to work in the constraints of the laws of the universe, that's what fine tuning is fundamentally. So, if you have full control and no constraints on anything, you just do whatever you want. No fine tuning needed because you have no force acting against you, no constraints on your work. There is nothing to fine tune if you set the rules.

[@Yesunimwokozi1]

What is life?

[@TheBanjoShowOfficial]

To create a world that can exist from a scientifically observable and provable manner means that it is fine tuned to even exist at all. If the universe did not exist in states of balance and imbalance, there would be no universe. The universe is a system of binary mechanisms- light and darkness, sound and no sound, order and chaos. Even our very own words exist by this nature- that sets distinctions between what we wish to direct attention to by either elimination of the things we do not draw attention to or to directly draw attention to a definite thing and not other things. God made this universe so that it would function in the manner it does- intentionally, deliberately, and with reason. He did not put us in a universe of contradiction, of unpredictability, he put us in a universe that could have mathematics exist, so that constants can be deliberated. Who is to say the Universe has to have reason to it? Why do protons have to be positive, and electrons negative? Why? Why can't they interchange between one another whenever they decide to? There is order drawn from chaos, but that is why chaos must exist. Because through chaos- order can be derived, for without chaos there is no order, and thus no structure. Why must evil exist? Because if not for evil, there can be no good. Why did God allow us to choose our path? Because for us to become contemplative like God that created us in His image, he must allow us to fall from grace so that we can either choose to object God or obey him and then live with him in communion for eternity. It may not seem like it, but God is not a tyrant, he allows us at every given moment to make a choice whether we participate with him in creation and create, or disband from him, and find ourselves lost before the immensity of the universe.

[@johnrichardson7629]

Even if you can make a case for an intelligent designer, that doesn't provide an iota of evidence that Yahweh IS that designer, let alone that there is any special relationship between Yahweh and Jesus. As for the fine tuning argument, until you can provide a reasonably defensible probability distribution that shows that the attested values of the physical constants are indeed improbable, this argument doesn't get one inch off the ground. Final grade: Epic fail

[@20july1944]

Let's go, Cameron!

[@paulandrews1548]

Sorry old friend I think he’s married 👬🌈❤️💕👠

[@MrGustavier]

"Why are there regularities in nature at all ?" I don't know. The disconfort experienced by homo sapiens when faced with incomprehension is a natural cognitive bias, but it doesn't mean that one should fall prey to confirmation bias (another natural bias) to answer something different than "I don't know", which is the only honest answer.

[@truthmatters7573]

Another cognitive bias is to stop looking for answers and content yourself with ignorance to avoid even considering the God hypothesis.

[@MrGustavier]

@@truthmatters7573 Yes, I encourage, of course, the relentless search for answers, anything less would be obscurantism. But one should preserve oneself from the various cognitive biases while doing so. Saying "I don't know", and admitting one's own ignorance is the necessary step for that relentless search for answers. The god hypothesis doesn't encourage *"looking for answers"* , because the god hypothesis answers all in an unfalsifiable manner. In that sense, the god hypothesis answers all, and answers nothing at the same time.

[@murtazashafiq6807]

​@@MrGustavier There are some things that just seem to require an explanation but that science cannot explain. Because of this some people just give up and say science will solve it for the future or it's just brute while in reality this is just counterintuitive. A theory where god exists may just provide a better explanation than naturalism can. The god hypothesis gives an answers which is required but one in which naturalism can't give. Saying 'I don't know' is not always the epistemically correct thing to do. Truth should be sought no matter where it leads. It's not a cognitive bias to realise that.

[@MrGustavier]

@@murtazashafiq6807 *-"The god hypothesis gives an answers which is required"* Required in what sense ? Required by our cognitive biases ? *-"Saying 'I don't know' is not always the epistemically correct thing to do."* It is the correct thing to do when one doesn't know ! *-"Truth should be sought no matter where it leads. It's not a cognitive bias to realise that."* That's what I said.

[@MrGustavier]

@@murtazashafiq6807 *-"There are some things that just seem to require an explanation but that science cannot explain."* Theology can't explain it either... *-"A theory where god exists may just provide a better explanation than naturalism can."* How so ?

[@MrGustavier]

46:55 "Are the natural physical processes that shaped our world (are) boring and simple and unremarkable and typical ? no." How can one answer this question ? To decide whether something is "typical" or not, one needs to compare it with other things of the same kind. What other universes can we use to decide whether our is typical ?

[@MrGustavier]

50:50 he answers the question : "given that we have provable mathematical consistency as evidence of possibility" Does he realize what he is saying here ? First of all, there is no provable "mathematical consistency" at the level of maths that he is using, doesn't he reference Gödel in his talk ? Isn't he aware that we can't even have the real numbers without impredicativity ? Second of all, even if mathematical consistency were the case, how does that "evidence possibility" ?

[@EstudioVoitheia]

That is the notion of complexity. It is not always about compare the things of the same kind. One can have some atipical combination of simple (more tipical) elements. A good illustration of that is noise (tipical) and music (atipical, at least good music). The universe is like a really, really, really well done symphony. It is not like noise at al. I hope that can help.

[@MrGustavier]

@@EstudioVoitheia You can invent some criteria of complexity, sure, but how can you justify interpreting it as being *"well done"* without expressing your bias ? Something isn't *"well done"* just because something has complexity...

[@EstudioVoitheia]

@@MrGustavier Good question! Here "well done" is the precision that one would need to have a universe with very "well done" composite particles as, it is the case of an atom (even the simplest one is a very complexe machine) that is in itself a building bock for a huge higher order structures. There is a very large range of possibilities where the most fundamental particles of the universe would not form higher order structure.

[@MrGustavier]

@@EstudioVoitheia I don't understand the response. "Well done" is a measure of precision ? I thought we were talking about complexity here, where does "precision" come in ? Why would a building block that forms higher order structures "well done" ? Would a building block that does not form higher order structures be "well done" too ? If not, why ?

[@MyContext]

If a claim is not sustained, then the claim is vacuous. This is the core issue with theological claims, which is grounds for their dismissal as explanations.

[@iamBito]

Wtf does this mean

[@MyContext]

@@iamBito Claim: Leprechauns are responsible for all the luck in the world. Issue: We have no evidence for the existence of leprechauns and thus the claim is pure assertion and thus vacuous in the context of what is currently known. The net result being that we have no basis to accept such a claim and thus the claim is dismissed. This is the same issue with theological (God notions) claims. The term God references any idea entailing at least the idea of a non-contingent intelligent agent.

[@gabenorman747]

@@MyContext False equivalence.

[@MyContext]

@@gabenorman747 Please present this false equivalence you are claiming. Or is this an example of something that is also unsubstantiated?

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

@@MyContext THat's the dumbest thing ever. You don't make Disjunctive logical inferences such as "Either space matter or time, came from absolutely nothing, or Leperchauns exist" or "Either there's an infinite multi-verse or Leprechauns exist." There is NO reason to believe in leprechauns (unless you have literally observed one), but there's all sorts of reasons that one can infer the existence of God (or would otherwise be forced to believe in infinite sequences of events, infinite actualization chains etc). I think I'd probably learn the difference between deductive inference and inductive, and categorical logic, if I were you. The comparison between a high-level theistic God (being with a mind who can create and fine tune universes, create life) and leprechauns is pretty much the dumbest comparison ever. It's a complete lack of understanding of categorical logic. No difference than if someone infers that aliens exist (perhaps inference made by receiving radio signals or something) and then you "refuting" it by stating "you've never seen one! You have the same 'evidence' that life exits out there, as you have that little green men live on Mars". Uhhhh, wtf? That's the problem w/ atheists, is they learn this from people who aren't remotely qualified, and have no idea what they're saying (ie Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris etc). It's like they're armchair philosophers.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

Dr. Barnes: I look at the universe and what science has found out so far, and I find aspects of what it found out that don't add up and seem contradictory. Dr. Barnes: In my understanding that indicates the existence of God and therefore God exists. Other: When you consider God, do you find that he has aspects that do not add up and seem contradictory?

[@2fast2block]

What does not add up?

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@2fast2block The question refers to whether believers find coherence between the different characteristics of God and between them and what reality shows us. God is logical?

[@2fast2block]

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd God is very logical. Why would I think God is not? What did you or I create from nothing? For one, we couldn't exist.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@2fast2block God is omniscient but does not know who will be damned. He waits for the end of time and sees who are the sinners. God is immutable but he has angry behaviors. He loves humanity but sometimes exterminates it. God is everything and God is not what he is not. God creates everything but man also creates. God has a complex divine simplicity. God doesn't need anything but he needs the unconditional love of humanity to the point of torturing it eternally if humans don't love him above all things. Etc. (x1000) :)

[@2fast2block]

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd your not honest. Your list is a joke. Look at you first..."God is omniscient but does not know who will be damned. He waits for the end of time and sees who are the sinners." Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Ephesians 1:4 Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love Jeremiah 1:4-5 Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” There are many verses along this line. God predicted how they would be and yet it was all done by their freedom of choice. It's just that God knew ahead of time. Just as though that will go through their whole life never believing and never then getting saved. God knows it but God never programmed that way. It was all done by their freedom of choice. God clearly said....1 Tim 2:3 and 4 "This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But why go on with you, you have your mind set on lying. You don't care about the truth, you love having your head up your A$$.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

Sick intro, Cameron!

[@flameonyouyesyortube]

Berean’s gang

[@Scaldaver]

Tldr: humans evolved such that they could comprehend their environment. People come along later completely flabbergasted that people understand their environment. Therefore God.

[@ivanvnucko3056]

That turned sour very quickly. The intro with Colmogorov complexity was an interesting point, mathematically valid and well presented, but rather a technicality in the debate about god and universe. My hopes were high. But then downhill... One very plain "look at the trees" "argument" which took like 10 minutes of only nice pictures and no real content. And then something which should be Dr. Barnes specialty, but turned out to be just some brief intro to open questions in cosmology. I don't think anyone is disputing that "most other values" of the constant wouldn't create stable matter, it's the implications of that that are the main point of the discussion. Just one remark: why should atheists try to "replace god"?? That's the point: god was never there in the first place, "god did it" is no explanation for any thing.

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

How is "god did it" , as you put it "no explanation of anything". I hear atheists say that all the time, and it's utterly silly. If "God did it", then God IS the explanation. That's like saying if "the laws of physics did it" (which you'll hear some atheists say), then it is "no explanation of anything". I just cant' understand what an atheist means when they say "God did it" is "no explanation", because clearly, the explanation is God. What on earth do you even mean? Do you mean to say "I'm not happy with the explanation?" or "That's not the explanation I think is the correct one"? What does it even mean? That comment makes no sense.

[@generichuman_]

@@thegreatcornholio7255 Take God out of the equation for a second. If you ask me how an internal combustion engine works, and I say Greg the Mechanic makes it work, is that a good explanation? Does it help you understand anything? Does it help you build or fix an internal combustion engine? Now, lets say I take the time to explain how everything works, the cam shaft, the pistons, the carburetor, the physics behind everything, in enough detail for you to build one from scratch. Which one of these is a better explanation? When we say God is a bad explanation, we're comparing it to the latter type of explanation which I would call a scientific explanation. Scientific explanations are actionable. You can do something with them. You can't do anything with the God explanation except go "ok...cool".

[@2fast2block]

@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 "because first one would have to present evidence for a god' You have to pull your head out of your A$$. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@2fast2block]

@@generichuman_ "You can't do anything with the God explanation except go "ok...cool"." If you're braindead, yeah. Laws of nature prove 100% we can't get certain things naturally. We have one alternative left, they were done supernaturally. Once a person admits to that, then the next step is finding evidence for this supernatural power that did it. If you're looking for the mechanics of how things are done supernaturally like creating natural things that never existed before, you missed the whole point. As I wrote to someone else, show us how smart you are. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@seanjones2456]

@@thegreatcornholio7255 You are missing the point. There is no evidence for any of the man made gods throughout history. Remove your head from your cornholio and show us the evidence. NOBODY ever has and you will not either. "Look at the trees!" Is code for "I am a moron!"

[@donnadeau7619]

Out of human imagination, the gods were invented in his image...the end. No apology needed.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Out of human imagination, a little one liner was invented to show ones feelings... the end. No apology needed.

[@donnadeau7619]

@@CedanyTheAlaskan .What are you saying, that god was not invented by humans?

[@2fast2block]

@@donnadeau7619 if we invented God that created the universe and us, how did we get the universe and us? How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@daneumurianpiano7822]

I can't share this with my atheist friends.

[@MaverickChristian]

First!

[@colinjava8447]

Depends what is meant by accident in this context, and even if it wasn't an accident, it doesn't imply a god

[@CCCBeaumont]

Intentionality at the level of a universe causing event certainly implies God. Not "a god" as you have pointed out, but God Prime, THE PRIME MOVER, is almost a certainty based on this and a great deal of other evidence.

[@colinjava8447]

@@CCCBeaumont Yeah but you smuggled in intentionality there, which seems to require some sort of intelligence. We haven't established any intention yet.

[@CCCBeaumont]

@@colinjava8447 Well actually, you are the one who "smuggled" it in when you wrote, "even if it wasn't an accident. . ." There are, at that point, only so many choices. If it wasn't an accident then it was, of necessity, on purpose, which necessitates intelligence, unless you know of some third option, as yet undisclosed. I was simply responding to your thread post. I am happy to approve of your "smuggling" though.

[@colinjava8447]

@@CCCBeaumont Well what does accident mean in this context, when you knock over a cup of tea, that's an accident. Perhaps name another accident of nature for comparison.

[@CCCBeaumont]

@@colinjava8447 Still, I was merely replying to your statement that if it wasn't an accident that doesn't imply a god. It would seem it actually would, if it is not an accident.

[@molkien9928]

Is Luke Barnes really employing the use of the "Look at the trees (hummingbirds)!" argument? Regarding the Cosmological Constant, is Luke arguing (indirectly and perhaps inadvertently) that God would **not have been able** to create a Universe unless he specifically set the Cosmological Constant to the value that we observe? Could God have chosen a different value and still been able to create a life-permitting Universe or was he limited in what the value could have been?

[@2fast2block]

God created all this and us. Even through the fall due to sin, we still see God's magnificent glory. The fine-tuning is just one of those glories. Somehow though that is not good enough for you to have such preciseness to have life on this earth. "Could God have chosen a different value and still been able to create a life-permitting Universe or was he limited in what the value could have been?" For me, I will marvel at how God did what He did rather than wonder on useless matters.

[@molkien9928]

@@2fast2block _Somehow though that is not good enough for you to have such preciseness to have life on this earth._ If God existed, he literally could have created life in any way imaginable. No fine-tuning necessary. The only reason "life" needs things to be a certain, precise way, in your worldview, is because God designed it to have those limitations. He could have created life that did not need certain levels of oxygen or a specific temperature range or gravity. Theists are so easily impressed that life exists.... where life can only exist (naturally) in a Universe supposedly created by a being that could create life anywhere - regardless of the environmental variables. Show me life where life could not exist naturally and then maybe I'll be impressed. _For me, I will marvel at how God did what He did rather than wonder on useless matters._ In other words, you will simply accept what you were told - that God did it, rather than consider if what you were told is actually true and makes sense. Don't trouble yourself with thinking or questioning what you've been told - such useless matters.

[@2fast2block]

@@molkien9928 "If God existed,..." Look, be the F00L you just love to be. It's your stooo-pid life. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@mbarnett865]

@@2fast2block Miraculously designed. Born: blind, deaf, cleft palette, no arms, no legs, conjoined twins, midgets, dwarfs, heart disease, brain tumors, mentally retarded, psychopathic, bipolar, cancers (pick one), fill in the blank ________.

[@MrGustavier]

Wasn't that a 45min long god of the gap argument ?

[@jacoblee5796]

Yes, yes it was.....

[@murtazashafiq6807]

No. He made an argument as to why science can't solve the problem of the cosmological constant. Not that contemporary science couldn't but that any model or conceivable model doesn't seem to solve the problem. Because of this there should be a solution which lies outside of the realm of science

[@jacoblee5796]

@@murtazashafiq6807 And what is his conclusion?

[@AlexADalton]

I could be wrong but I think he's framing it as an inference to the best explanation.

[@MrGustavier]

@@AlexADalton He didn't explain anything to be honest, he just pointed at the current state of scientific knowledge.

[@merlinator11]

Can I request a talk with Dr Barnes with him going through hubble images for half an hour explaining what they are?

[@dcscccc]

i have an interesting question about the origin of life: suppose that we will find a reproducing robot with DNA. do we need to conclude design in this case, or a natural process since it has DNA like a living creature and thus it can supposedly evolve naturally? thanks

[@kennylee6499]

well… since it has dna it wouldn’t matter whether it was a robot or a dog. It would still fall under intelligent design. But if i recall correctly that movement is heading more into the origin of DNA and the first life rather than combat evolutionary diversification

[@maow9240]

Define design?

[@2fast2block]

@@maow9240 something that can't happen by chance. If you saw a watch, that is designed. WTF are you that you need such an explanation of design? Can you make a point or is that too hard for you?

[@maow9240]

@@2fast2block why be so hostile over a simple question? besides your hostility you pose an interesting answer. you said "something that can't happen by chance" what has been asserted is that there is no mind behind the universe or that the universe does not need a mind behind it to be which leaves everything by chance. so how do you determine that the universe came by just by chance? otherwise it would be designed,

[@2fast2block]

@@maow9240 "why be so hostile over a simple question?" Because it's a stupid question as I pointed out. Oh, but you just want to get away with such questions and be unchallenged. "so how do you determine that the universe came by just by chance?" Do you realize your reading problem? Are you truly that slow?

[@getayalewe1009]

"This is a divine and biological law." Everyone who has "seed" on this earth lives on earth. In order to live after death, it is necessary to be a "seed" from heaven Because life, whether in heaven or on earth, begins with "birth." Life is a matter of "seed". Man, animal and plant You must be born again (John 3:3). To know Jesus is eternal life (John 17:3).

[@kathleennorton7913]

At 30:50 it looks like a headless bigfoot, but a man's head is peaking out from behind it, who has small horns. This is what it looks like on my small phone, at least.

[@tabasco7915]

The folowing is what I have learned far before You and I had started corosponding. You had previously mentioned coherence. Well, with the multifaceted degrees of non-theisim it seems to me that any type of absolute truth cannot be agreed upon or conclusively arrived at but rather presumptuous at best. This renders truth to always be subject to self determination (subjective). Therefore, in the non-theistic realm how do you determine what is coherent and what is not? It seems to me that this would be self determined and always subject to change. This renders coherence as no more than theory and a non attained objective (good intentions). Thus, not all but much of this debacle is the result of the drug culture from back in the 60’s. Thus, non-theistic idealism has its founding pioneers. Its pimus has systemically branched out and accelerated into today's culture and way of rationality even amongst the very intelligent. Now I will grant that there are some truth theories that are perhaps seemingly more coherent and widely convincing and accepted than others but even those get all sorts of distorted additions and complexity as you have effectively demonstrated. This just breeds more and more uncertainty and/or confusion because of mutating variation. Mind you, this is far more detrimental to society and worse than the supposed discrepancies in the bible all due to hyper complexity. It is never ending. Driving the whole of this Primordial soup is the notion that things will get better and better as man and the environment evolves until we reach a utopian state or world over time. Hence, the transhumanisim objective. It has recently been coined as “The Great Reset.” What a bunch of nonsense. I mean you talk about deception and false expectations. It's all a great fantasy. It's no wonder why more and more folks are turning to drugs and drink and/or anti depresents. It's ALL a vast pool of hopelessness. No, it’s just not for me. To be an atheist would be being systemically linked to this whole mass of variance and multiplexity. To me, that is way more non-coherent than belief in God and/or theisim. Additionally, even the coherence of the theory of evolution needs to be discerningly questioned as this here demonstrates: ☛ kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXWXh6Gjd8aLhNk. In any case, you are hell bent on maintaining the sovereign control of your own life and don't give me this crap about propaganda as I have seen it demonstrated time and time again (no one is an acception in the naturalistis realm). Thus, who am I to try to stop or persuade you? Coherence? Google search ☛ Faith in God Is the Only Coherent Basis for Reason & play audio. Consider this as well, if I die and there is no God I've lost nothing. On the other hand, if you die and there is a God you've lost everything. Thanks for all your responses and over and out!

[@introvertedchristian5219]

I considered going to this conference just for the sake of meeting Luke. Now I'm glad I didn't.

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

Why? Instead of watching him on a screen by watching him on a screen, you could have watched him on a screen, directly, instead of being thrice removed, as you are now.

[@introvertedchristian5219]

@@thegreatcornholio7255 Because not meeting is not meeting.

[@computationaltheist7267]

That seems like a harsh thing to say. Why come to such a conclusion?

[@introvertedchristian5219]

@@computationaltheist7267 Because he wasn't there.

[@computationaltheist7267]

@@introvertedchristian5219 Oops. Please accept my apologies for my remark. Before the video explained that he didn't attend the event physically, I truly believed he was there.

[@Whatsisface4]

I'm a bit puzzled. Surely if the universe is natural, there being no god, It can't be accidental. If natural it could only be and act according to it's properties, meaning it can't be an accident.

[@林二郎-k5h]

The problem of the video is the survivorship bias

[@MrWeezer55]

BTW, you haven't provided sufficient evidence for this claim.

[@2fast2block]

Although long-winded, he covers that we could not get all this by randomness. That's common sense to thinking people but not to you. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@MrWeezer55]

@@2fast2block Call me back when the woo wears off

[@2fast2block]

@@MrWeezer55 Here's what happens when you give an empty person common science they can't contend with, they will completely ignore it and since they are inept human beings that don't care, they will think they have something clever to say that makes it look like they are not as shallow as they are, so this is what is considered a good scientific come back to all the science they were provided: Drumroll, please.... their science....."Call me back when the woo wears off" Yes, I'm serious. I'm not making this up. They are really that empty. They are really that STOOOO-PID!

[@jacoblee5796]

Sufficient evidence? I just heard a bunch of assertions.

[@stephenkaake7016]

there is no such thing as 'random' , only unpredictable, or unknown no such thing as chance or luck either, those are descriptive words, not properties of the universe

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

I guess the skeptical line now is, "how do we know that?" (referring to you)

[@stephenkaake7016]

@@CedanyTheAlaskan we use words to help describe things, but they aren't really describing the reality of nature, we could say 'its hot outside' 'the stove is hot' 'the sun is hot' they are describing a relative relationship when someone uses the word luck, chance or random, they are describing from a point of view 'i'm lucky to survive that crash' but its not lucky from another point of view to be in the crash in the first place

[@2fast2block]

@@stephenkaake7016 one could be lucky they were given a plane seat that did not get them killed compared to another seat that they would have been killed. It's common sense but not to you. Also, we can't get lucky to have gotten all this by random chance. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@stephenkaake7016]

@@2fast2block so if someone gets in a plane crash they are 'lucky' , thats opposite of common sense, considering how rare plane crashes are especially on a giant airliner, I guess i'm unlucky because I have problems that are much worse than what everyone else has to deal with but I think the problem is people are not good or they would be helping not harming

[@2fast2block]

@@stephenkaake7016 " so if someone gets in a plane crash they are 'lucky' , thats opposite of common sense" Ok, I got it. You are devoted to being stooo-pid no matter what. Then...be stooo-pid. Oh, wow, way to go too on ignoring the science I gave, also. Yep, ignoring evidence and common sense is what you're all about. ---------------- Again...one could be lucky they were given a plane seat that did not get them killed compared to another seat that they would have been killed. It's common sense but not to you. Also, we can't get lucky to have gotten all this by random chance. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@tyamada21]

My new understandings of what many call 'God' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us. My autobiography explaining how I, and others I've told, have used this chant to successfully change our poisons into medicine titled: 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within', is now available at Amazon Books for 99 cents (the lowest Amazon allowed me to price it) You can also read more about Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo in Tina Turner's new book: Happiness Becomes You -- or you can Google 'Let go and let God' by Olivia Newton-John. 🙂

[@sishrac]

Just 3 points: 1. Since this requires a sound vibration in that one must chant the words the deaf and mute must be excluded since in no way can they chant that. 2. A "me" centered meditation can never lead to enlightenment. On the contrary, it will elevate one's denial of sin, which is the cause of all suffering. 3. The God of the Bible eliminated the middleman by entering humanity Himself. In fact, He is accessible by anyone who searches, even the deaf and the mute.

[@tyamada21]

@@sishrac Thank you for your comments, sishrac. Your questions are good and my only answer can be one from my heart and past experience. Firstly, life has no limitations and it works in uncountable ways in accordance with the Law. As we progress (humans) we continue to discover amazing new ways to overcome the obstacles that are set in our path on this planet (Saha World of suffering). Even with the mute, blind and deaf, incredible advances have been and are being made. For example, many of the deaf are now able to hear thanks to technology, the blind are able to read (brail) and some have been able to gain various aspects of sight. A great example in regard to the mute was Professor Stephen Hawking. Regarding your mention of sinners, rather than our sins being the effects of Eve eating an apple (as the Bible teaches) they are the effects of our own past bad causes, which have earned us a stint in this world of suffering - a world also of opportunity to awaken to our own karma and then to change our poison into medicine by making good causes - or we have an alternative choice to allow ourselves to be motivated by our bad karma and make even more of the same or worse. Regarding your mention of Jesus, yes he was a wonderful gift to the world and he worked hard to rectify the wrongs in the Bible, such as replacing 'an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth' to forgiveness, love and compassion. He also changed many more things, but he was killed by the evil in this world before he could finish his work. Since then, instead of going out on a limb and following his good example by continuing his work and cleaning other similar none loving, compassionate and unforgiving guidance, many do nothing and just believe that by appraising the name 'Jesus ', all will be good and well., which it most certainly isn't, we only need to look at the dismal state of the world around us to know that, which has been helped to come about through the contribution of many so-called Christians - propagating hatefulness in the name of Jesus. In regard to the LAW - Jesus had to be born - he had to eat and adhere to all the usual physical earthly rules etc. In other words, he existed in accordance with what Myoho-Renge-kyo represents, just as we all do. Jesus also often mentioned 'God's Law' in his teachings - part of which is that 'we reap what we sew' in other words 'Cause and Effect'. Having said all that, the bottom line is that we each have a choice and I sincerely wish you all the best with what you choose...

[@AlexADalton]

Great talk, but why are none of these people in the audience wearing masks?

[@apracity7672]

To breathe better

[@Bc232klm]

@@apracity7672 Are they so weak that they can't breathe with masks? If so, they shouldn't be leaving the house.

[@apracity7672]

@@Bc232klm breathing in a mask is a less pleasant experience

[@UpperCutZX10]

They follow science

[@sillysyriac8925]

Virtue signal much?

[@Triple7000]

The same time humans came up with this God theory, they also came up with a theory that the Sun revolved around the earth.

[@woodstockxx]

Have look at the stars in a night sky..have think about their fixed locations..now think some more about how any movement/rotation is relative, in a space so vast as this universe

[@ThefrenchFranz]

Hopefully devoted Christians proved the earth to rotate around the sun: Galileo, Newton, Kepler, all driven by their faith in the magnificent designer. Galileo sure had a hard time facing the religious authorities, but so had Christ himself.

[@EstudioVoitheia]

Here a good illustration about Luke Barnes says about the fine tuning: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mXTUiaVnh5t9lZo

[@MyContext]

The idea of fine tuning is incompatible with the idea of omnipotence.

[@EstudioVoitheia]

@@MyContext It is not very clear... why?

[@MyContext]

@@EstudioVoitheia The idea of omnipotence dismisses the idea that any particular is required given that any interaction could be made to be as desired if one had the power to make such a change. Thus, if only particular configurations can work and such configurations were not possible without intervention, then there are many candidate explanations so long as such is not omnipotent. Further, given our knowledge of thought as a process, the idea of anything intelligent is also ruled out, since processes are contingent.

[@EstudioVoitheia]

@@MyContext Do you mean that an OmmGod would not created an universe that would properly work (with its own internal rules and constraints) without His continual intervention?

[@MyContext]

@@EstudioVoitheia I am saying that the very idea of fine tuning is an absurdity with regard to the idea of an omnipotent entity. The idea of fine tuning is a declaration that things could not have been otherwise which means that there was no power to make it otherwise which is a dismissal of omnipotence.

[@reality1958]

You have to have verifiable evidence for a god to reasonably propose it exists and is responsible for a universe

[@tjseaney_]

Jesus is historical verifiable evidence. Christianity is not built on principles but an historical person. If Jesus rose from the dead? Everything that is being discussed here is evidence.

[@GhostLightPhilosophy]

@@tjseaney_ Where is the verifiable historical evidence for the existence of the Jesus of the Gospels?

[@eddd2932]

@@tjseaney_ Mohammed also probably existed. Julius Caesar definitely did exist and was also written by sources of his time as being divine however it's not reasonable to think he was god on earth anymore than Jesus of Nazareth.

[@tjseaney_]

@@GhostLightPhilosophy there isnt a historical scholar in the world that doesn’t think Jesus existed. Christians and non-Christian.

[@tjseaney_]

@@eddd2932 Nobody claimed Julius Caesar rose from the dead. Yes Julius Caesar was seen as a god-like figure. You need to understand the distinction historically between God and god.

[@alohahoward1]

In reading about Dr. Luke Bares life it seem that he has tried to fit physics into his Christian model of the world. When he was 18 he started undergraduate studies in physics and dismissed the idea that there was a big bang and believed that the earth was 6000 years old. He did dismiss the creationist idea and learned about the big bang. My point is that he has tried to reconcile his Christian model of the world with the physics model. God can not be derived from mathematics. By saying that the probability of an accidental Universe approaches zero is meaningless. What is the probability that God exists? He also cherry picks points about how atheists are wrong. Who cares? Also, what does atheism mean? I don't believe in cyclops, is there a word for that?

[@jacoblee5796]

That's the problem with Luke and people like him, he's a Christian first. Luke isn't interested in science or truth, he's only interested in trying to mold science and truth to his Christian world view.

[@jacoblee5796]

@C L Oh yeah, what’s the math on that?

[@rexsterling7346]

@@jacoblee5796 there is no math, no logic, no common senses. It's all made up, just like the fairytale book they read and worship

[@Teuts2000]

Couldn't you then say that Sean Carrol and other atheist physicists are just trying to shape their physics to their atheistic worldview?

[@jacoblee5796]

@@Teuts2000 Could you explain the atheistic worldview? What holy text do they read? Where do they worship? What are the tenets for being an atheist? Atheism isn't a world view, it is the answer to one question and that's it. Luke Barnes grew up a Christian and is a Christian first. Let me put this another way. Luke Barnes thinks he already has the answers and is trying to fit the evidence to his preconceived answer. Sean Carol doesn't have that baggage. Sean is working from the bottom up, Luke is working from the top down. Science works from the bottom up, religion works from the top down. So one is doing science and the other is doing theolegy.

[@20july1944]

@ "Blue": what science are you familiar with?

[@20july1944]

@@randomblueguy Excellent! What was the first thing to exist, with your education as a physics and mathematics student?

[@20july1944]

@UCGyDC-ecOWJBfegMF0fVeCw No, it's not an open problem. What is your alternative to a absolute beginning?

[@20july1944]

@UC-ErdTKBEi6siHR0NYi8nHg So, does entropy naturally decrease in your model?

[@20july1944]

@@randomblueguy With two arrows of time, one of which leads to lower entropy? It doesn't matter how many arrows of time there are as long as all are heading toward higher entropy.

[@20july1944]

@@randomblueguy No, the universe can't be past-eternal because it constantly loses order and gains entropy.

[@AWalkOnDirt]

As an atheist and former Christian I stopped watching the video at the word, “Darwinism.” If I was engaged in a conversation in real life and a Christian used this type of language the conversation would immediately end.

[@CCCBeaumont]

That's either a rather juvenile or uneducated response isn't it? How old are you Larry? The term "Darwinism" is not, by itself, pejorative.

[@everyzan-m2q]

Alright Larry the Clown, just blatantly ignore the fact that Luke Barnes accepts evolution fully and that "Darwinism" is an actual thing. There's literally a Wikipedia page called "Darwinism", and the page defines it as synonymous with "Darwinian theory".

[@CCCBeaumont]

@@everyzan-m2q You should at least know that atheists only cite Wikipedia when it agrees with whatever their bias is, in all other cases it is unreliable. lol

[@AWalkOnDirt]

@@CCCBeaumont The term is a red flag and I likely saved myself a lot of frustration. I actually highly enjoy discussions about the universe but I thought “Oh this guy is one of those people.” He uses Christian apologetic language that in many cases warp reality in a self serving manner.

[@AWalkOnDirt]

@@everyzan-m2q If he accepts Evolution then he should have used that term. I would be still listening. Again, it’s a red flag. He likely uses terms common in the Christian apologetic community that have a straw man type of quality. I very likely saved myself some annoyance.

[@MrGustavier]

50:50 "given that we have provable mathematical consistency as evidence of possibility" Does he realize what he is saying here ? First of all, there is no provable "mathematical consistency" at the level of maths that he is using, doesn't he reference Gödel in his talk ? Isn't he aware that we can't even have the real numbers without impredicativity ? Second of all, even if mathematical consistency were the case, how does that "evidence possibility" ?

[@murtazashafiq6807]

I believe Godel proved that Mathematics can't be a fully contained system or that there needs to be some external explanation to account for mathematics but there's clearly no problem in using mathematical models in describing reality. Just looking at the hundreds of examples in chemical engineering or aeronautics or other fields. None of these fields would have any basis if there mathematical models didn't help with contrasting real things. Possibility is generally evidenced by lack of impossibility. Though what's impossible may not always be obvious, something is generally impossible if there's some sort of inconsistency. If there's consistency then that's a strong indicator that there's no reason why it could not happen in some possible world hence it's possible.

[@MrGustavier]

@@murtazashafiq6807 *-"something is generally impossible if there's some sort of inconsistency"* Ok, then as you said yourself, Gödel showed that any mathematical construct at the Peano arithmetic level is inconsistant. So, following your own definition, it seems that anything that is predicted by this type of mathematical construct is impossible ? What am I missing here ?

[@UpperCutZX10]

He then went on to explain that making some assumptions and/or generalities is very useful and common. He brought up Godel in defining random, accidental, provable, non-provable, etc

[@caiomateus4194]

We know that the math used in standard physics is consistent because it describes the actual world. In modal logic, anything actual is possible. By varying the physical constants up to a certain limit, the mathematics of standard physics does not change. Evidence of possibility is given by the absence of contradiction in the order of being (ie, absence of incompossibility of intrinsic notes), we know this in the same way that we know anything else self-evident (that something cannot "be and not be" at the same time time and under the same aspect, for example).

[@MrGustavier]

@@caiomateus4194 *-"We know that the math used in standard physics is consistent because it describes the actual world."* That's not what mathematical consistency means. Consistency means that a theory doesn't prove both a theorem and the negation of that theorem. In other words that it doesn't entail contradictions. *"In modal logic, anything actual is possible"* And ? *"Evidence of possibility is given by the absence of contradiction in the order of being (ie, absence of incompossibility of intrinsic notes)"* I am not sure what you mean here. What being ? What notes ? *-" that something cannot "be and not be" at the same time time and under the same aspect, for example"* You know that quantum physics has disproven that right ? You know that dialetheism rejects that right ? You know that paraconsistent logic rejects that right ? What is self evident about something that is rejected ?

[@a-atheist]

"my context" like other atheists fail. P1: God is a non-contingent intelligence This is both a straw-man and even if it was not would be a fallacy of composition. Nobody argues that god = a non contingent intelligence. God has the attribute of intelligence. Intelligence is non contingent. Intelligence is not "a process". But i wouldn't expect an atheist to understand what words mean. Intelligence is both contingent and non contingent. Definition: "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills" Having an inherent ability is not a process. This is fallacious, because God has a variety of properties, most of which are both contingent and non contingent. This idea that something cannot have properties that are both is hysterical. ALL things in existence have properties of both. The difference is, god is the ultimate source of all non contingent properties. Humans for example have quality of "mind" Which is non contingent. The existence of the human having a mind is contingent upon its parents. That which is one with the the concept of intelligence would be non contingent. The actual process the "application" of intelligence would be contingent. Nobody argues that the actions that a god did would be non contingent upon god. 🤣 Part of the ridiculousness of almost all atheist arguments is the (unproven, and ridiculous) presumption of empiricism.

[@paulmuriithi9195]

oh boy this is another "amazement at universe design...therefore God" fallacy. no proof presented nor evidence demonstrated for Gods existence.

[@sishrac]

There's something to be said when people are still deluded despite the miracles of nature all around them that they'll seek out scientists to prove God's existence. Even if scientists can and have all the right numbers and equations to prove God, the Almighty will confound them for trying to put Him in a test tube. Yet, He will reveal Himself to the one who marvels at His handiwork and calls out to Him.

[@keswes266]

Please would u name a few of these so-called miracles for me? Nothing to difficult or lengthy just real miracles.

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

I'm still not convinced that Sean Carroll understands what a "sustaining cause" is. I think, that he thinks that it's some sort thing that gives things energy to keep moving or something like that, but doesn't fully understand what is meant by actualization and potential. I don't even think he really understands what a formal or final cause is, just based on the debate I saw him in with Craig.

[@2fast2block]

Carroll is plain stooo-pid. "We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description." Sean Carroll As if Sean cares about reality. How did Sean get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if Sean wants to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving science how creation really happened by natural means. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k

[@Mindmartyr]

That Dawkins quote is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

[@2fast2block]

He says a whole host of stooo-pid things. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/

[@jerichosharman470]

Awesome…so in conclusion….. we can’t explain it therefore we can explain it and it’s god

[@Yesunimwokozi1]

U can't be that dumb ..repent.

[@kenandzafic3948]

That's not an argument, that's your misrepresentation of the argument so it's completely irrelevant. The god of the void is simply an outdated atheistic cliché, and that's why you won't see him in top-notch atheists like Graham Oppy.

[@jerichosharman470]

@@kenandzafic3948 it’s not a misrepresentation, it’s a summary of how I saw it. Don’t like it, then don’t use words consistent with that view

[@kenandzafic3948]

@@jerichosharman470 Your summary is wrong because the argument is that fine-tuning is more expected on theism than on naturalism so it has nothing to do with the God of the Gaps argument.

[@jerichosharman470]

@@kenandzafic3948 there is no reason to believe fine tuning from the facts. And even if there was, the argument would still summarise as….”we can’t explain , therefore we can explain it…..and it’s god “

[@TheSebastianML]

ATHEIST: THERE IS NO EVIL. ATHEIST 5 SECONDS LATER: CHRISTIANITY IS EVIL.

[@sanjeevgig8918]

So, god created the universe 14 BILLION years ago and then sat around for 13.999999 BILLION years. LOL

[@CapturingChristianity]

Idk, watching a universe expand, galaxies form, stars illuminate new planets, etc. would be pretty cool to watch.

[@molkien9928]

@@CapturingChristianity So God created the Universe so he could watch galaxies and stars and planets form and get destroyed repeatedly for 11 billion years (the first billion of which there was no light) before getting around to his ultimate goal of seeding a particular planet with life?

[@e.jackyewlait4426]

I am not Christian but the easy answer is time means nothing to their God. So billions of years might as well be 6 days.

[@sanjeevgig8918]

@@e.jackyewlait4426 Yes the easiest way is to give god all the powers he needs to answer all the questions - he is time-less, space-less, mass-less, also outside of space and mass and time, all powerful, maximally powerful, giver of all things you can think and not think. All questions answered. LOL

[@jacoblee5796]

@@sanjeevgig8918 LOL right! This is a huge problem with Christian thinking. Christians get backed into a corner and they just give their god some new power or change how they define their god. They love moving the goal post!

[@new-knowledge8040]

There are those who believe that God exists, and there are those that do not believe that God exists at all. Then there are others who place truth above those mere beliefs and dis-beliefs. They absolutely refuse to allow less than truth to be placed above truth itself. To them, replacing truth with mere beliefs and dis-beliefs, is an act of insanity. And so when the truth was revealed concerning the proof of God, the believers and disbelievers both rejected it in a flash. This is because believers and disbelievers both insist upon remaining at a distance from the truth itself. They do so by sticking to their mere beliefs and dis-beliefs.

[@new-knowledge8040]

Thus if you believe in God, and stick to that belief, and God truly exists, well that's a bummer, because you will continue keep yourself at a distance from him, by continuing to be a believer. If I was crossing a road at a crosswalk, and I saw a car that was out of control heading right toward me, my mind may say, "I believe that if I dive forward right now, I will get out of that cars path, and thus I will be perfectly OK. And so I obviously then move away from that mere belief, and head on over to that hopeful truth that that mere belief spoke of. However, if I was incredibly stupid and chose to simply stick to the belief alone, and think that the belief alone will save me, of course I would get run over by the car. Thankfully I am not stupid, and so I know that one has to move away from the belief to get to the very truth itself.

[@claymcdermott718]

@@new-knowledge8040 but in that example, you didn’t move away from the belief that the car exists; you accounted for the belief by acting a certain way. I do like your point though: At a certain point, your “belief” about the car cannot be merely academic. You will not be saved by an opinion alone.

[@new-knowledge8040]

@@claymcdermott718 Now, that made me laugh. I suppose one could allow the car to run over you, to verify its TRUE existence. Anyhow, here is a hint concerning God proof. Imagine that you searched the KJB Bible NT for the words The Father, and you found them 156 times. Then imagine that you searched again but this time for the words The Lord, and you found them 462 times. WOW, because just weeks earlier you were somehow led to the code 6 English gematria, in which numerical values are assigned to each individual letter, and thus the numerical value of the name GOD, add up to 156, and CHRIST, adds up to 462. But that was just the beginning.

[@chadstchad]

lol hail daddy satan

[@2fast2block]

I give the glory to God who created all. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc The odds are NOT there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k